Benefit Cuts

Lofty_Love wrote:mansion tax is a totally ridiculous idea, to tax people based on the size of their home is not even slightly fair. Someone could save up for half their life, spend little money elsewhere and buy a nice home and then be taxed heavily when their income may be low. Also many assest are obtained through inheritance. Should a person on £27,000 a year have to pay a huge amount of tax because their parents left them the family home? of course not.

'mansion tax' is just another ridiculous idea which has been proposed as a tax of the rich when in fact its a tax on anyone who has a large home - so basically if your not an idiot and decide to actually save money for your family to live in a comfortable house your taxed more than a banker on £100,000 who lives in a tiny house and spend it all on parties and cars..

How would that be fair?

Its not fair at all .

Lofty_Love wrote:mansion tax is a totally ridiculous idea, to tax people based on the size of their home is not even slightly fair. Someone could save up for half their life, spend little money elsewhere and buy a nice home and then be taxed heavily when their income may be low. Also many assest are obtained through inheritance. Should a person on £27,000 a year have to pay a huge amount of tax because their parents left them the family home? of course not.

'mansion tax' is just another ridiculous idea which has been proposed as a tax of the rich when in fact its a tax on anyone who has a large home - so basically if your not an idiot and decide to actually save money for your family to live in a comfortable house your taxed more than a banker on £100,000 who lives in a tiny house and spend it all on parties and cars..

How would that be fair?

The Mansion tax was aimed at homes worth £2m or more so it would not affect people who "save money for [their] family to live in a comfortable house". It may not be fair but is it fair that most seriously wealthy people (say those with incomes above £250,000) pay little or no tax on their income?

a little addendum: If you haven't paid anything in you shouldn't get one penny out. - nothing, no child benefit, no housing, no council tax, etc. nothing at all, and that goes for our indigenous 'jeremy kyle audience' too.

xmiles wrote:

The Mansion tax was aimed at homes worth £2m or more so it would not affect people who "save money for [their] family to live in a comfortable house". It may not be fair but is it fair that most seriously wealthy people (say those with incomes above £250,000) pay little or no tax on their income?

I don't think an exact value had been determined (or at least told to us) I saw the Lib Dems were saying over the value of £1 million last month, and whos to say they wouldn't drop that further.

I just think tax should depend on the income of the person, not if they used to be wealthy, had wealthy parents or spend their saved money on a house. I mean what would be next? annual nice car tax, high range clothing tax?

And no its not fair that they can get away with paying little tax, perhaps a few new laws to lower tax avoidance and banking overseas need addressing.

Alf Hooker wrote:a little addendum: If you haven't paid anything in you shouldn't get one penny out. - nothing, no child benefit, no housing, no council tax, etc. nothing at all, and that goes for our indigenous 'jeremy kyle audience' too.

let me guess, your a fan of the film Angela's Ashes?

that's what society would be like if every fucker thought like you...

dont get me wrong, as I said above - I HATE bums, but SOME people have no option but to be on benefits, its not their fault, its the system thats fucked them over...

actually, fuck it...lets scrap the NHS, I dont want my tax money paying for other peoples well-being, If they cant afford to pay for it then let them die...

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Alf Hooker wrote:a little addendum: If you haven't paid anything in you shouldn't get one penny out. - nothing, no child benefit, no housing, no council tax, etc. nothing at all, and that goes for our indigenous 'jeremy kyle audience' too.

let me guess, your a fan of the film Angela's Ashes?

that's what society would be like if every fucker thought like you...

dont get me wrong, as I said above - I HATE bums, but SOME people have no option but to be on benefits, its not their fault, its the system thats fucked them over...

actually, fuck it...lets scrap the NHS, I dont want my tax money paying for other peoples well-being, If they cant afford to pay for it then let them die...

Don't talk bollocks, - I don't remember 36" flat screen TVs in fuckin Limerick, So you think its ok to have a perpetual cycle of life on benefits?? who said scrap the NHS? What I object to is anyone and everyone doing nothing but take and putting nothing back into the pot - I've worked and paid in since I was 16 - I object to people the same age as me and their kids doing nothing but take - It is very easy to work out the difference between those that actually need help (disabled ederly etc.) and those that know how to screw the system for everything they can. I still say if you or your immediate family haven't contibuted what the fuck gives you the right to sponge off those that have?

Alf Hooker wrote:It is very easy to work out the difference between those that actually need help (disabled ederly etc.) and those that know how to screw the system for everything they can. I still say if you or your immediate family haven't contibuted what the fuck gives you the right to sponge off those that have?

I couldn't agree more. We take too many things for granted these days. If we'd been born 100 years ago we'd have none of this. If we didn't want a job we'd be living in a cardboard box and begging for food.

I'm not saying we should go back to those days but claiming benefits should be to pay for food and shelter, nothing more.

Alf Hooker wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Alf Hooker wrote:a little addendum: If you haven't paid anything in you shouldn't get one penny out. - nothing, no child benefit, no housing, no council tax, etc. nothing at all, and that goes for our indigenous 'jeremy kyle audience' too.

let me guess, your a fan of the film Angela's Ashes?

that's what society would be like if every fucker thought like you...

dont get me wrong, as I said above - I HATE bums, but SOME people have no option but to be on benefits, its not their fault, its the system thats fucked them over...

actually, fuck it...lets scrap the NHS, I dont want my tax money paying for other peoples well-being, If they cant afford to pay for it then let them die...

Don't talk bollocks, - I don't remember 36" flat screen TVs in fuckin Limerick, So you think its ok to have a perpetual cycle of life on benefits?? who said scrap the NHS? What I object to is anyone and everyone doing nothing but take and putting nothing back into the pot - I've worked and paid in since I was 16 - I object to people the same age as me and their kids doing nothing but take - It is very easy to work out the difference between those that actually need help (disabled ederly etc.) and those that know how to screw the system for everything they can. I still say if you or your immediate family haven't contributed what the fuck gives you the right to sponge off those that have?

I dont believe flat-screen TVs were around then nat.

I agree that bums get an easy ride and its wrong, but I still stand by the fact that some people cannot live by another means for whatever reason. Like the single mother I mentioned above who worked 30 hours a week and struggled to make ends meet - SHE WAS TOLD BY THE BENEFITS OFFICE TO QUIT HER JOB - SHE IS BETTER OFF FOR IT! Is this the fault of the system or her? does this make her a sponger?

when she had the baby she was in a stable and happy relationship, then it went tits up. She wants to work but its not financially viable for her to do so. would you remove this girls benefits and condemn them both to a life of abject poverty just because your self-centred attitude dictates she should be thrown out on the streets with a 2 year old child and left to die?

I never argued that were completely wrong - your not, but the above post by Alf Hooker is a typical ignorant view of society as a whole, each case has different circumstances - this is why I feel a MEANS TESTED system would be better.

Just as a side note - you claim to be a businesswoman, a former businesswoman of the year actually, so I assume your company (or your daddy's company for that matter) must be a pretty big one... thus, I assume you have an accountant who ensures you put as little as possible in to the pot by as many means possible? Is this not a little hypocritical of you to whine about 'spongers' when you yourself are (lawfully, but still nonetheless) avoiding paying the 'full' amount of tax yourself by using a creative accountant? forgive me if im wrong, but I know people who own companies and I also know accountants and the lengths some business people will go to are pretty amazing...

I think you prove by reply that you are the ignorant one or have no ability to read and comprehend. The example you give of the single mother who HAD WORKED as you say would of course be entitled to all the benefits, because she had contributed. If she was up the duff at 16 and single, never worked a day in her life she is entitled to exactly the same. This is wrong. Read the words and try to understand them, NOT what you want to read. It's dead easy pay nothing in - receive the same out.

I have worked since I left school. I retired from one job after 30 years and I then took another job to supplement my pension. My new job entails me getting up at 6am. I don't like having to get up at that time but it's something I just have to put up with.

I know a bloke who lives not far from me who has not worked for over 10 years because he has a bad back. He has four kids. A daughter of 18, a son of 17 and two younger children both under 10. His daughter recently left school and had a job offer in Manchester working in a shop for £800 a month. She passed the interview but couldn't be arsed getting up in the morning and prefers to stay in bed till dinner time like her bone idle father.

Now get this beat, the eldest son has ADHD and goes to a special needs school in St Helens. He is collected every morning by private taxi and then brought home again at night. This service is provided free by the council.

Both parents have cars. He used to have a 59 plate Nissan Quashqai and she has a two door soft top cabriolet with a personalised plate.

Last week he got a brand new 62 plate Ford Focus which makes me think the cars are both on motability finance which they are entitled to because their son is classed as special needs.

The mother doesn't work. She claims benefit as a carer for her ' sick ' husband and also for her son who has educational needs. The father, 'Billy Bad Back' claims disability/ incapacity benefit because he can't work because of his back. He is only in his late thirties/ early forties and is probably in better shape than I am. To top and tail it he also has a Suzuki 750cc motorcycle up his drive. He only goes out on it on Sundays because of his back! They also have a caravan in Rhyll. As well as the ubiquitous flat screen TV they also have virgin plus internet in their kids bedrooms.

As far as I can see they do not contribute a single penny to society and are nothing more than parasites who serve no useful purpose whatsoever. They also have a bulldog and two cats. Unfortunately this is what the benefits culture has created. Work shy bone idle layabouts who are happy to milk the system for every penny they can get.

Reebok Trotter wrote:I have worked since I left school. I retired from one job after 30 years and I then took another job to supplement my pension. My new job entails me getting up at 6am. I don't like having to get up at that time but it's something I just have to put up with.

I know a bloke who lives not far from me who has not worked for over 10 years because he has a bad back. He has four kids. A daughter of 18, a son of 17 and two younger children both under 10. His daughter recently left school and had a job offer in Manchester working in a shop for £800 a month. She passed the interview but couldn't be arsed getting up in the morning and prefers to stay in bed till dinner time like her bone idle father.

Now get this beat, the eldest son has ADHD and goes to a special needs school in St Helens. He is collected every morning by private taxi and then brought home again at night. This service is provided free by the council.

Both parents have cars. He used to have a 59 plate Nissan Quashqai and she has a two door soft top cabriolet with a personalised plate.

Whats he got now RT?

Lofty_Love wrote:

xmiles wrote:

The Mansion tax was aimed at homes worth £2m or more so it would not affect people who "save money for [their] family to live in a comfortable house". It may not be fair but is it fair that most seriously wealthy people (say those with incomes above £250,000) pay little or no tax on their income?

I don't think an exact value had been determined (or at least told to us) I saw the Lib Dems were saying over the value of £1 million last month, and whos to say they wouldn't drop that further.

I just think tax should depend on the income of the person, not if they used to be wealthy, had wealthy parents or spend their saved money on a house. I mean what would be next? annual nice car tax, high range clothing tax?

And no its not fair that they can get away with paying little tax, perhaps a few new laws to lower tax avoidance and banking overseas need addressing.

I agree that tax should depend on the income of a person. The problem is that the seriously rich employ lawyers and tax advisers to avoid paying tax. The mansion tax was suggested as a way to get these rich bastards to pay tax in a way they couldn't avoid.

Provided it kicks in at a high enough level I don't think very many people would be financially inconvenienced by a mansion tax. The hypothetical old lady living in a mansion with little income could easily get a mortgage to cover the mansion tax, and honestly how many cases like this really exist outside the imagination of Tory speechwriters and Daily Mail journalists?

I've lived off taxes for 8 years now, I have no desire to go back to work for minimum wage just to come out with a similar amount of cash at the end of it.

Bolton Hater wrote:I've lived off taxes for 8 years now, I have no desire to go back to work for minimum wage just to come out with a similar amount of cash at the end of it.

That's because you have no sense of pride or self worth. Get your fat arse off the sofa and get on your bike you bone idle bastard.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

That's because you have no sense of pride or self worth. Get your fat arse off the sofa and get on your bike you bone idle bastard.

People like me are actually doing the country a favour - if everyone on the dole suddenly started applying for jobs there would be even less jobs for the rest of you.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Just as a side note - you claim to be a businesswoman, a former businesswoman of the year actually, so I assume your company (or your daddy's company for that matter) must be a pretty big one... thus, I assume you have an accountant who ensures you put as little as possible in to the pot by as many means possible? Is this not a little hypocritical of you to whine about 'spongers' when you yourself are (lawfully, but still nonetheless) avoiding paying the 'full' amount of tax yourself by using a creative accountant? forgive me if im wrong, but I know people who own companies and I also know accountants and the lengths some business people will go to are pretty amazing...

We don't have an accountant right now, he's inside for tax fraud.

Of course businesses are going to pay as little tax as possible, but that's a completely different issue. We're talking benefits here and the fact people on them can have the same (or better) standard of living as someone working full-time. Answer the question, is that fair?

Bolton Hater wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

That's because you have no sense of pride or self worth. Get your fat arse off the sofa and get on your bike you bone idle bastard.

People like me are actually doing the country a favour - if everyone on the dole suddenly started applying for jobs there would be even less jobs for the rest of you.

not even true.

act is tiresome.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

not even true.

act is tiresome.

You fool, if 2.5m people started applying for jobs it would just make things worse. I am a hero.

course "you" are.

Thats like saying John McClain is a hero for stopping that terrorist attack in Die Hard